from answers.com:
mon·ster (mÅ?n'stÉ™r)
n.
1. a, An imaginary or legendary creature, such as a centaur or Harpy,
that combines parts from various animal or human forms. b, A creature
having a strange or frightening appearance.
2. An animal, a plant, or other organism having structural defects or
deformities.
3. Pathology. A fetus or an infant that is grotesquely abnormal and
usually not viable.
4. A very large animal, plant, or object.
5. One who inspires horror or disgust: a monster of selfishness.
adj. Informal.
Extremely large; monstrous

Leonid Makarovsky wrote:

Lorin David Schultz wrote:
: On the extremely slim chance that you're not kidding, *GOOGLE* baby!

No, I wasn't. I didn't mean necessarily monster as brand name, but I meant
those thick RCA cables which are similar to Monster ones. So my
question is rather - old style regular RCA cables (L/R) vs Monster or similar
thick fancy cables.

Most modern equipment with a low source impedance going
short distances will not be effected by moderate amounts of
cable capacitance. It's only when going long distances from
high impedance sources does cable capacitance become an
issue that produces audible signal degradation.
There's no gaurantee that a fatter cable will have a lower capacitance.
Does the Monster cable have pF/foot rating ?
A heavier cable _might_ be more durable but for the typical
fixed installation this is a minor consideration.

Is it waste of $$$$?

Yes.

All I know that the old style thin cable can't be use to pass the digitalaudio
out for instance (I did try it).
I need a lot of them and I don't want to waste $$$ where it's not worth it.

Good quality cable TV coax (RG59,etc) is not expensive.

rd